Vicarius filii Dei is still making the rounds apparently.

Here is something about this nonsense, "Vicarius Fili Dei....

The actual Latin phrase is: "Vicarius Filii Dei," which means "Vicar of the Son of God." I will quote from an excellent book, CATHOLIC REPLIES, BY James J. Drummey, ISBN: 0-9649087-0-0. It is a Question and Answer book, so you will see both questions given and the answer provided. It makes for interesting reading and applies to the subject you introduced:

Quote....

Q. I reluctantly admit that my faith was shaken after reading a book called National Sunday Law by an A. Jan Marcussen, especially the interpretation of "Vicarius Filii Deill as Roman numerals that add up to 666. Can you comment? - M.Y., Maryland

A. We are not familiar with the book, but the ludicrous, if not malicious, attempt to equate the Holy Father with Satan (666 is reputed to be the mark of the beast, according to Revelation 13:18) has been convincingly demolished by Karl Keating on pages 221-222 of Catholicism and Fundamentalism.

One of the titles of the Pope is Vicar of Christ (Vicarius Christi), but the numerical value of those letters do not add up to 666. So anti-Catholics like Ralph Woodrow, author of Babylon Mystery Religion, have invented a new title for the Pope, Vicar of the Son of God (Vicarius Filii Dei) because those letters do add up to the number of the beast. The most commonly accepted theory is that the beast of Revelation was the Emperor Nero Caesar, who was an unmerciful persecutor of the early Christians and whose name adds up to 666. But if you want to play games with people's names, says Karl Keating, there are lots of individuals who could be identified as the beast, including Martin Luther, whose name in Latin also totals 666!

Q. I am writing to ask you about the papal title "Vicarius Filii Dei." A letter from Bill Jackson quotes you as saying: it... anti-Catholics like Ralph Woodrow have invented a new title, Vicar of the Son of God," etc. He then quotes from "Our Sunday Visitor" (April 18, 1915) that "the letters inscribed on the Pope's miter are Vicarius Filii Dei." I have come to understand over recent years that the number 666 can be applied to a multitude of names, so I have no desire to make some big point regarding a papal title. But can you clarify the above discrepancy? Was "Our Sunday Visitor" in error or has it, perhaps, been misquoted? Is it possible that both titles have been used within the Roman Catholic Church?

- Ralph Woodrow, California

A. Mr. Woodrow is head of an organization called the Evangelistic Association and author of Babylon Mystery Religion, a book that, as Karl Keating has demonstrated in Catholicism and Fundamentalism, is filled with erroneous statements about the Catholic religion, including the allegation that one of the Pope's titles is Vicar of the Son of God. If numerical values are assigned to the Latinized version of that title (Vicarius Filii Dei), said Mr. Woodrow in his book, the letters add up to 666, which Revelation 13:18 tells us is the number of the beast. This "revelation" has led many gullible people to believe that the Pope is the beast.

We are happy to know that Mr. Woodrow has come to realize that the number 666 can be applied to a multitude of names, and we are glad to have the opportunity to respond to his question about the quote that reportedly appeared in Our Sunday Visitor.

We called the Sunday Visitor and spoke to Robert P. Lockwood, president of the OSV corporation. Mr. Lockwood told us that he had looked into this allegation before and discovered that Fr. John Noll, in a column entitled "Bureau of Information" that appeared in the April 18, 1915 issue of Our Sunday Visitor, had indeed said that the letters inscribed on the Pope's miter are Vicarius Filii Dei.

Mr. Lockwood said that he did not know what Fr. Noll's source was, that there is no way of discovering his source since then-Archbishop Noll died in 1956, and that it was surely just a mistake made by a very busy priest, one who wrote virtually all the copy for the newspaper in its early years (OSV began publication in 1912).

That assigning the title "Vicar of the Son of God" to the Holy Father may have been a mistake is further indicated by the fact that Fr. Noll, in the same column, said that "the Bishop of Rome, as head of the Church, was given the title 'Vicar of Christ,"' which in Latin is Vicarius Christi and does not add up to 666. That, of course, is the correct title, and not Vicar of the Son of God.

We can also assume that it was a mistake from the fact that we have found no corroboration anywhere that any Pope was ever called Vicar of the Son of God. A recent (1967) edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia lists the following titles of the Holy Father: Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Chief of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, and Sovereign of the State of Vatican City.

Well, maybe Vicar of the Son of God was a title in use when Fr. Noll wrote his column. Not true. According to the 1911 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, the title pope was used solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth. Besides the bishopric of the Roman Diocese, certain other dignities are held by the pope as well as the supreme and universal pastorate: he is Archbishop of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy and the adjacent islands, and sole Patriarch of the Western Church."

The same article lists the "most noteworthy" titles of the Holy Father as Papa, Summus Pontifex, Pontifex Maximus, and Servus Servorum Dei. Another article, under the heading "Vicar of Christ," said that some popes had been called Vicar of St. Peter and Vicar of the Apostolic See, and Pope Nicholas III (1277-1280) was known as Vicar of God. But no pope was called Vicar of the Son of God.

We also looked into whether titles of any kind have appeared on miters, the liturgical headdress worn by popes, cardinals, abbots, and bishops of the Latin Rite. While miters were of different shapes over the centuries, and were sometimes adorned with gold embroidery and even precious stones, there is no indication of any words or titles being written on them.

In the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, there are sketches of ten miters of various shapes that were in use from the 11th to the 20th century, with no writing on them. There is also a picture of an elaborate 16th-century miter with paintings of scenes from our Lord's life, but no words or titles.

And if you want to see a papal miter up close, you can visit the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., and view the miter worn by Pope Paul VI during his pontificate. The miter is enclosed in a glass case and, as you walk around the case, you will not see any writing on his miter.

So those who base their charge that the Pope is the beast of Revelation solely on a single mistake in a column written eight decades ago are on very shaky ground. Their case is further shredded by a total lack of historical evidence to back up their allegation.

Finally, the charge is contrary to all common sense. In just our own century, for example, please tell us what Pontiff resembles the evil beast of Revelation? Pope St. Pius X? Benedict XV? Pius XI? Pius XII? John XXIII? Paul VI? John Paul II? How many magnificent documents have these men written, reaffirming teachings that go back to Christ Himself. How many thousands of talks have they given, calling people to holiness? How many thousands of miles has John Paul II traveled, urging those on every continent to follow Christ?

Have those who believe the Holy Father to be an agent of Satan ever listened to one of his talks and wondered how a man who sounds so good could be so bad? Have they ever noticed how often the Pope quotes from the Bible that they revere? Did they watch the way that John Paul challenged President Clinton to his face on the evil of abortion in Denver in August 1993? Did they watch the way the Holy Father called the youth of the world to serve Christ, and the tremendous enthusiasm this septuagenarian was able to generate among teenagers and young adults?

The man has an aura of goodness and holiness about him, and that is why people of all faiths, and of none, are so attracted to him and to what he says. He is a moral and spiritual lighthouse in a world that is foundering on the rocks of sin and secularism. All faithful Catholics and other Christians ought to be thrilled to have a spiritual leader who has the courage to proclaim "the splendor of truth" to a culture steeped in falsehood.

Satan is the "father of lies" (John 8:44), our Lord said. John Paul is an apostle of truth, guided to all truth by the "Spirit of truth" promised by Jesus at the Last Supper (John 16:13). This makes the Holy Father not an ally but an enemy of Satan. Are those who denounce the Pope so blind, so caught up in an unreasonable hatred of the papacy, that they cannot recognize that he is doing the work of God and not the work of the Devil?

Mr. Woodrow, Mr. Jackson, and others are certainly free to disagree with the teachings of the Pope and the Catholic Church, but they ought to make sure that their reasons for disagreement are not based on falsehood. For in disputing the Catholic Church, they are disputing what St. Paul called "the pillar and bulwark of truth" (I Timothy 3:15).

Unquote...

I will say in closing that such ridiculous charges brought against the Catholic Church was the reason I investigated her. In my youth, I wondered why so many bad things being said about her and I just had to find out...

I examined....

I became a Catholic!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church (1 Tim 3:15)

 

Mioque:

Sounds great to me. Let us know how it turns out. I would love to see it.

God Bless

 

That's my birthday! I'll keep you guys in my prayers. I wish that site was in english__looks like they have some great things.


God Bless

 

Mioque,

While I do not agree with "everything" in that link you quoted - it is time that we DO distinguish between "mythology" and historic "FACT".

Notice the Mythology in Bill's post that attempts historic revisionism??

One of the titles of the Pope is Vicar of Christ (Vicarius Christi), but the numerical value of those letters do not add up to 666. So anti-Catholics like Ralph Woodrow, author of Babylon Mystery Religion, have invented a new title for the Pope, Vicar of the Son of God (Vicarius Filii Dei)

Would you "conclude" from THAT that the RCC ITSELF was the one that not only STATED the Title but also PROMOTED it with no less thant TEN popes over a documented historic period of no less than Three centuries? (In fact more than that - but lets make it "easy" for the reader).

Would you "suspect" such a "smoking gun" from Bill's quote??

No you would NOT draw that conclusion from the myth in the quote by Bill above - be honest now that quote of Bill's WOULD NOT lead you to that historic fact.

The HISTORIC "smoking gun" for the RCC - is The RCC DOCUMENT - the Donation of Constantine - that USES that VERY Title for Peter and his successors AND is ADMITTED by the RCC itself - that it is NOT an "Anti-Cathlic" document NOR is it a "Catholic-bashing" Document.

IT is a document that was AUTHORED BY the RCC FOR the RCC and endorsed BY the RCC for centuries.

This is a huge embrassment for the RCC and so repeated attempts are made to obfuscate it KNOWING that the facts listed above can NOT be controverted.

We "could argue" that IF a real PAGAN had "authored the document" then it is simply "ignorance" - but the RCC declares that this is NOT the product of Constantine prior to his conversion - RATHER it is the product of RCC sources THEMSELVES - "pretending that it is Constantine". And No LESS than TEN Popes ENDORSE the CONTENTS - the ARGUMENTS - the POINTS MADE in that Document without a SINGLE objection to the honor, title and authority IT ascribes to Peter and his successors.

And so - on a thread supposedly discussing this VERY TITLE - the RCC posters - continue to obfuscate this historic fact - and in the long winded posts - they OMIT all mention of this "smoking Gun".

Don't you find that a little "odd"? Somewhat in opposition to "full disclosure"?


But "worse" than NOT mentioning it - the quote above appears to attempt "revisionist history" as if the HISTORIC ACTIONS of the RCC in SUPPORTING that "smoking Gun" do not exist.

I find that "instructive".

I examined...

I found the REAL Catholicism of history
- and it was not a pretty picture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Okay, Bob. Let's say for the sake of arguement thateverything you said is spot on. Please tell me, with this document no longer accepted, as well as the "title" used within it, if the 666 still applies to the current pope, or popes before these "ten." And if so, please state your justificiation.

 

Hmm lets "think about it". The document is "admitted to be OWNED BY and AUTHORED by RCC proponents FOR the RCC and then used BY the RCC in the form of NO LESS the TEN Popes". This is the confession of the RCC.

SO does that confession "indicate" that the RCC does not believe the CONTENTS of the Document REFLECT the views of the RCC - but RATHER they reflect ONLY the views of anti-RCs bashing the RCC??

Hmmm - lets think. The RC sources come up with CONTENT that is supposed to be used only by RC bashing anti-Catholics. They come up with CONTENT that is SO appealing to the RCC ITSELF that TEN of its Popes ARGUE FOR IT!!

In fact NO COMPLAINT is made by the RCC against the CONTENT of the document EVEN after finding that the RC-devotees that forged it - were in fact FORGING the document to CREATE favorable conditions for the RCC for anyone who BELIEVED the document to be authentic.

And the "question is" does this INVALVIDATE the document as a REAL historic document SHOWING the RCC PREFERRED views of the Pope and teachings of the RCC using CONTENT that IT finds desirable to promote for centuries??

Made BY them - used BY them - and the content STILL NOT denied - ONLY the origin "corrected".

I would say that given the history of it - it is an even BETTER indicator of what the RCC would have SAID IN the document since in fact it IS the RCC speaking IN the document AND NOT Constantine.

What part of this do you not get?

Obviously the document becomes even MORE useful as a historic document revealing REAL preferred views of the RCC ITSELF once discovered to be AUTHORED by RC sources and observed to be promoted by no less than ten popes.

It becomes LESS useful (if not in fact useless) as a document showing the views of Emperor Constantine HIMSELF on ths subject - since he in fact did not author it - and never saw it.

SO IF the RCC were instead the "church of Constantine" we would THEN have to argue that once found to be a forgery - it no longer is useful in showing CONSTANTINE's views.

It seems simple enough. Why is this concept so hard for Catholics?

In Christ,

Bob

Hmmm -

 

For all to read...

http://www.shasta.com/sphaws/vicar.html

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

Bob,

The Church does not adhere to this document, nor is it ever at this time (or before its time) used as any kind of suport.

I suppose I should answer that I don't "get it" because your arguments are not valid. The Donation of Constantine was a forgery, so no matter who supported it or who wrote it, it holds no baring on Catholic doctrine or belief. It was a reflection of Catholic beliefs, and a false method of validation: yes. But considering this title is no where else referenced officially, you have NO basis to make your ACCUSATIONS (because they are certainly not fact).

But, you keep preaching to your choir. Apparently they never get tired of the same old garbage.

 

This is simply a blatant denial of your own history and your OWN historians. The reference to the document in published documents by no less than Ten Popes is ALREADY a matter of history.

You can not "revise it now". Though I appreciate your efforts to use blind devotion as a model of "history" declaring that "anything that does not please you" did not "happen".

Again "blind reasoning". The question is - DOES the document refect views REALLY held, supported and promoted in the dark ages by the RCC.

Answer. It was CREATED BY the RCC. It was endorsed BY no less than Ten Popes. It was created FOR the RCC. It was used to ARGUE the case for temporal authority OF the RCC by no less than Ten Popes.

The "blind argument" that the RCC was in violent and open DISAGREEMENT with the document - is not a fact of history. IN FACT even TODAY the RCC does NOT take the CONTENT of the document and declare "we NEVER thought this was true".

IN FACT - the Historical statement of the RCC is [/b]"NOBODY DOUBTED this Document from the 7th century to the 15th century when it was "found" to be a forgery"[/b]

But that is merely "history" and I know how strong the desire of the RCC devotee can be to "revise it" if it does not "please".

And so - reason prevails at last.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Many thanks to Bill Putnam for posting a reference to this site in the LINK he gave above --
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/666.htm

The list of RC sources in Aloha site - refrencing the title of this thread - was more than I knew about.

-- many thanks!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

What is the “logical” implication of discovering that the Donation of Constantine is a CATHOLIC document and not a document of Constantine?

Obviously the document becomes even more useful as a historic document revealing real preferred views of the RCC itself once discovered to be authored by RC sources and observed to be promoted by no less than ten popes.

It becomes less useful (if not in fact useless) as a document showing the views of emperor Constantine himself on this subject - since he in fact did not author it - and never saw it.

So if the RCC were instead the "church of Constantine" we would then have to argue that once found to be a forgery - it no longer is useful in showing Constantine's views.

It seems simple enough. Why is this concept so hard for Catholics?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Let' see now.

Bob. you have it shown to you that not one official document of the Catholic Church indicates that "Vicar of the Son of God" (in Latin), something constructed out of whole cloth, clinging to a document that is a fraud, false, a forgery.

but never mind, Bob has this thing that he is going to cling to no matter what. And incredibly, even if the Donatation of Constantine were not a forgery, the fact that the author of this document may have called the pope as "The Vicar of the Son of God," does not in and of itself make it an official title!

Bob. did you happen to notice all of the other surpurlatives and niceties give to the pope in that paper, that not one of them is an official title?

If I were to sit down and write "the pope is the master of the universe," does that make that an official title of the pope, Bob?

Now, let's just suppose that indeed, that "Vicar of the Son of God" (in Latin) is an official title. The conjecture that this adds up to "666" in your screwball notion that this somehow proves that the pope is the "antiChrist" fails on two grounds:

1). Which pope is the "AntiChrist"? All of them, Bob? And all this time, I thought there was only one antiChrist.

2). All of the other examples, given in my first link in this thread that shows how many other names make up "666" as well, so are you going to include them too, Bob? How many antiChrists do we have, Bob?

Finally, you imply that this 'wascally ole meanee of a church' was the one who was so devious in somehow "hiding" the "official title" of the pope, is somehow that very same Church that was guided by the holy Spirit in her compiling of the New Testament, she likewise refrained from "altering" what the authors wrote to promote her own devious doctrines?

My Catholic New Testament reads essentially the same as your KJV or whatever version bible you have, Bob.

But how can you trust it if it were "handled" by such a devious church? How does the holy Spirit protect it in the handling of scriputres, and at the same time, is no better then the mofia when it comes to other affairs?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

Bill - sidestepping the point again?

The obvious fact is that the "Donation of Constantine" was NOT CLAIMED by the RCC as "ITS official document" - RATHER it claime that it was "CONSTANTINE's official document".

WHEN proven to be a forgery of CATHOLIC origin and NOT of Constantine's origin IT BECOMES a Catholic document - NOT the Emperor's document.

When PROVEN to be prmoted by no less than Ten popes it THEN becomes "official".

And when shown to be IN Latin AND to contain THE VERY Title that Catholics "now" want to assert that "ONLY ANTI-Catholics would use for the Pope" - your only response is that no OTHER Catholic document ALSO does the SAME?

Are you following the point at all?


Why is it "so hard for catholics to understand" that by declaring the document to be NOT of Constantine's origin BUT rather of GENUINE CATHOLIC origin - we thereby declare it to be a FORGED document that CLAIMED to be of Constantine's origin and NOT of Catholic origin.

However that "claim" is shown to be false - it is SHOWN that in fact it is of Catholic origin INSTEAD - because it IS a forgery of something supposedly of Constantine's origin.

The VERY CLAIM of forgery is what clears the smoke of anything to do with Constantine and lays it PURELY at the door of CATHOLIC origin - all agree.

So when you say "it is, something constructed out of whole cloth, clinging to a document that is a fraud, false, a forgery."

You merely RE-EMPHASIZE that it is in fact - of genuine historic CATHOLIC origin and NOT of genuine historic Constantine's origin.

What part of that point is so hard for some of our Catholic friends here?

I save the rest of the points for another post since this ONE point seems to be so difficult for the Catholic responders to comprehend in their posts.

I just don't see what is so hard to get. - What is the problem?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Agreed. ONE catholic person living in the 7th century that "thinks maybe Peter held that title" would not be "compelling" for a Catholic - or for a non-Catholic.

But TEN POPES that READ that document and concluded that IT IS telling the TRUTH -- the TRUTH NOT JUST about its origin being from Constantine BUT ALSO the TRUTH about the points it makes IN FAVOR of the Papacy - then the ENDORSEMENT "is as infallibly official" as the RCC knows how to get!

Furthermore when we LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE of the document (which is EXACTLY what the Popes were doing) and SEE that the ARGUMENT FOR the secular powers of the Popes WAS derived from the aspects associated with the Title - THEN it becomes in fact THE KEY SALIENT POINT of what the Popes were arguing from.

Again - the fact that you pretend that this basic logic of the document is so hard for a Catholic to "get" is beyond me.

I just don't understand how it can be that confusing EVEN if you ARE already Catholic when you discover it.

Can someone please explain that RC confusion on the salient point OF the document AND its use by the Popes?

In Christ,

Bob